Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Golden & Walters, PLLCgreen2 sentences2024Ultimately, we reasoned that, “[b]ecause an unripe claim is not justiciable, the circuit court has no subject matter jurisdiction over it.” Id. at 270 (footnote omitted). 2015Ripeness is a threshold issue: “Because an unripe claim is not justiciable, the circuit- court has no subject matter jurisdiction over it.” Id. (citations omitted). | 3 | 4 |
Berger Family Real Estate, LLC v. City of Covingtongreen1 sentence2023Real Est., LLC v. City of Covington, 464 S.W.3d 160, 166 (Ky. App. 2015) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
W.B. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Servicesgreen1 sentence2015“The basic rationale of the ripeness requirement is ‘to prevent the courts, through the avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements^]’ ” W.B. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 388 S.W.3d 108, 114 (Ky.2012) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 , 87 S.Ct. 1507 , 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967)). | 1 | 1 |
Nordike v. Nordikegreen2 sentences2012Other cases (for example, Nordike v. Nordike, 231 S.W.3d 733, 739 (Ky.2007) and Doe v. Golden & Walters, PLLC, 173 S.W.3d 260, 270 (Ky.App.2005)) hold that "an unripe claim is not justiciable” and that "the circuit court has no subject matter jurisdiction over [an unripe claim].” Nordike, 231 S.W.3d at 739 . 2012Other cases (for example, Nordike v. Nordike, 231 S.W.3d 733, 739 (Ky.2007) and Doe v. Golden & Walters, PLLC, 173 S.W.3d 260, 270 (Ky.App.2005)) hold that "an unripe claim is not justiciable” and that "the circuit court has no subject matter jurisdiction over [an unripe claim].” Nordike, 231 S.W.3d at 739 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
red
2 sentences2015“The basic rationale of the ripeness requirement is ‘to prevent the courts, through the avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements^]’ ” W.B. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 388 S.W.3d 108, 114 (Ky.2012) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 , 87 S.Ct. 1507 , 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967)). 2015“The basic rationale of the ripeness requirement is ‘to prevent the courts, through the avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements^]’ ” W.B. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 388 S.W.3d 108, 114 (Ky.2012) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 , 87 S.Ct. 1507 , 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.